We present a systematic method for exactly enforcing Dirichlet, Neumann, and Robin type conditions on general quadrilateral domains with arbitrary curved boundaries. Our method is built upon exact mappings between general quadrilateral domains and the standard domain, and employs a combination of TFC (theory of functional connections) constrained expressions and transfinite interpolations. When Neumann or Robin boundaries are present, especially when two Neumann (or Robin) boundaries meet at a vertex, it is critical to enforce exactly the induced compatibility constraints at the intersection, in order to enforce exactly the imposed conditions on the joining boundaries. We analyze in detail and present constructions for handling the imposed boundary conditions and the induced compatibility constraints for two types of situations: (i) when Neumann (or Robin) boundary only intersects with Dirichlet boundaries, and (ii) when two Neumann (or Robin) boundaries intersect with each other. We describe a four-step procedure to systematically formulate the general form of functions that exactly satisfy the imposed Dirichlet, Neumann, or Robin conditions on general quadrilateral domains. The method developed herein has been implemented together with the extreme learning machine (ELM) technique we have developed recently for scientific machine learning. Ample numerical experiments are presented with several linear/nonlinear stationary/dynamic problems on a variety of two-dimensional domains with complex boundary geometries. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method has enforced the Dirichlet, Neumann, and Robin conditions on curved domain boundaries exactly, with the numerical boundary-condition errors at the machine accuracy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Mapping between a general quadrilateral domain Ω and the standard quadrilateral domain Ωst=[−1,1]2 .
ξ
φ0(ξ)
φ0′(ξ)
φ1(ξ)
φ1′(ξ)
ψ0(ξ)
ψ0′(ξ)
ψ1(ξ)
ψ1′(ξ)
−1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Table 1: Interpolation properties of C1 Hermite interpolation polynomials defined on ξ∈[−1,1] .
ξ
ρ0(ξ)
ρ0′(ξ)
ρ0′′(ξ)
ρ1(ξ)
ρ1′(ξ)
ρ1′′(ξ)
υ0(ξ)
υ0′(ξ)
υ0′′(ξ)
−1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
ξ
υ1(ξ)
υ1′(ξ)
υ1′′(ξ)
ω0(ξ)
ω0′(ξ)
ω0′′(ξ)
ω1(ξ)
ω1′(ξ)
ω1′′(ξ)
−1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Table 2: Interpolation properties of C2 Hermite interpolation polynomials defined on ξ∈[−1,1] .
Figure 2: Helmholtz equation: Domain geometries (top row) and the exact solutions (bottom row), (a,f) domain #1, (b,g) domain #2, (c,h) domain #3, (d,i) domain #4, and (e,j) domain #5.
Figure 3: Helmholtz equation (Dirichlet BCs on all boundaries): Distributions of the NN solutions (top row) and their point-wise absolute errors (bottom row) on the five domains. Simulation parameters: Domain #1, Rm=4.62 , Q=70 , M=800 ; Domain #2, Rm=4.0 , Q=65 , M=800 ; Domain #3, Rm=4.57 , Q=65 , M=800 ; Domain #4, Rm=3.53 , Q=60 , M=800 ; Domain #5, Rm=4.17 , Q=65 , M=800 .
domain #1
domain #2
domain #3
domain #4
domain #5
max-error (domain)
1.167E−5
1.115E−7
1.485E−6
1.026E−8
4.350E−9
rms-error (domain)
2.752E−6
3.071E−8
1.034E−7
2.727E−9
8.668E−10
max DBC-error ( AB )
8.882E−16
4.441E−16
8.882E−16
8.882E−16
4.441E−16
rms DBC-error ( AB )
1.051E−16
5.747E−17
1.034E−16
2.271E−16
1.696E−16
max DBC-error ( BC )
2.220E−16
0.0
8.882E−16
4.441E−16
8.882E−16
rms DBC-error ( BC )
5.747E−17
0.0
1.371E−16
8.999E−17
1.134E−16
Table 3: Helmholtz equation (Dirichlet BC on all boundaries): maximum and rms NN-solution errors over the domain ( emaxΩ , ermsΩ ), and the maximum and rms DBC errors on the four boundaries ( εmaxAB , εrmsAB , εmaxBC , εrmsBC , εmaxCD , εrmsCD , εmaxAD , εrmsAD ). Simulation parameters follow those of Figure 3 .
Figure 4: Helmholtz equation (Neumann or Robin BC on boundaries): Distributions of the NN solutions (top row) and their point-wise absolute errors (bottom row) on domain #1. (a,d) Case #1: NBC on BC , and DBCs on the other boundaries. (b,e) Case #2: RBC ( α=1.0 ) on BC , and DBCs on the other boundaries. (c,f) Case #3: NBCs on BC and CD , and DBCs on the other boundaries. Simulation parameters: Rm=5.0 , Q=70 , M=950 for all cases.
Case #1
Case #2
Case #3
max solution-error (domain)
4.536E−5
4.217E−5
8.295E−5
rms solution-error (domain)
3.775E−6
3.420E−16
8.818E−6
max DBC-error ( AB )
0.0
0.0
0.0
rms DBC-error ( AB )
0.0
0.0
0.0
max NBC- or RBC-error ( BC )
1.421E−14
1.421E−14
1.421E−14
rms NBC- or RBC-error ( BC )
3.614E−15
4.180E−15
4.154E−15
Table 4: Helmholtz equation on domain #1 (Neumann or Robin BCs): maximum and rms NN-solution errors over the domain, and the maximum and rms boundary-condition (DBC, NBC, RBC) errors on the boundaries. Different cases correspond to those in Figure 4 .
Figure 5: Nonlinear Helmholtz equation: Domain geometries (top row) and the exact solutions (bottom row), (a,e) domain #1, (b,f) domain #2, (c,g) domain #3, and (d,h) domain #4.
Figure 6: Nonlinear Helmholtz equation (Dirichlet BC on all boundaries): Distributions of the NN solutions (top row) and their point-wise absolute errors (bottom row) on the four domains. Simulation parameters: (a,e) Rm=4.0 , Q=50 , M=1000 . (b,f) Rm=4.5 , Q=55 , M=1000 . (c,g,d,h) Rm=5.0 , Q=60 , M=1000 . Qdb=8 (see Remark 2.10 ) for all domains.
domain #1
domain #2
domain #3
domain #4
max-error (domain)
2.544E−9
8.948E−7
4.475E−7
4.808E−7
rms-error (domain)
4.359E−10
2.099E−7
7.637E−8
1.118E−7
max DBC-error ( AB )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
rms DBC-error ( AB )
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
max DBC-error ( BC )
8.882E−16
4.441E−16
5.551E−16
4.441E−16
rms DBC-error ( BC )
2.303E−16
1.662E−16
2.075E−16
1.615E−16
Table 5: Nonlinear Helmholtz equation (Dirichlet BC on all boundaries): maximum and rms NN-solution errors over the domain, and the maximum and rms DBC errors on the four boundaries. Simulation parameters follow those of Figure 6 .
Figure 7: Nonlinear Helmholtz equation (Neumann or Robin BCs): Distributions of the NN solutions (top row) and their point-wise errors (bottom row) on domain #1. (a,d) Case #1: Neumann condition on BC and Dirichlet condition on the other boundaries. (b,e) Case #2: Robin condition on BC and Dirichlet condition on the other boundaries. (c,f) Case #3: Neumann condition on BC and CD , and Dirichlet condition on the other boundaries. Simulation parameters: (a,d) Rm=4.0 , Q=60 , M=1000 . (b,e) Rm=3.5 , Q=60 , M=1000 . (c,f) Rm=2.5 , Q=60 , M=1000 .
Case #1
Case #2
Case #3
max solution-error (domain)
2.133E−8
1.045E−8
4.709E−8
rms solution-error (domain)
2.498E−9
1.367E−9
7.885E−9
max DBC-error ( AB )
0.0
1.388E−16
0.0
rms DBC-error ( AB )
0.0
6.418E−17
0.0
max NBC- or RBC-error ( BC )
5.329E−15
6.217E−15
7.105E−15
rms NBC- or RBC-error ( BC )
1.540E−15
2.198E−15
1.994E−15
Table 6: Nonlinear Helmholtz equation on domain #1 (Neumann or Robin BCs): maximum and rms NN-solution errors over the domain, and the maximum and rms boundary-condition (DBC, NBC, RBC) errors on different boundaries. The three cases correspond to those in Figure 7 for different types of boundary conditions.
Figure 8: Heat equation on deforming/moving domains: space-time domain geometries (top row) and the exact solutions (bottom row). (a,d) Domain #1 (deforming spatial domain); (b,e) Domain #2 (moving spatial domain); (c,f) Domain # ( another moving spatial domain).
Figure 9: Heat equation on deforming/moving domains: Distributions of the NN solutions (top row), and their point-wise absolute errors (bottom row) for domains #1 (a,d), #2 (b,e) and #3 (c,f). Simulation parameters: Domains #1 and #3, Rm=4.0 , Q=100 , Qdb=7 , M=1000 ; Domains #2, Rm=5.5 , Q=100 , Qdb=7 , M=1000 .
domain #1
domain #2
domain #3
max solution-error (domain)
6.083E−8
7.503E−5
1.736E−9
rms solution-error (domain)
1.712E−8
1.401E−6
3.208E−10
max BC-error ( AB )
0.0
0.0
0.0
rms BC-error ( AB )
0.0
0.0
0.0
max BC-error ( BC )
8.882E−16
8.882E−16
8.882E−16
rms BC-error ( BC )
1.983E−16
3.436E−16
3.743E−16
Table 7: Heat equation on deforming/moving domains: the maximum and rms NN solution errors over the space-time domain and on the boundary CD , and the maximum and rms boundary/initial condition errors on AB , BC , and AD . Note that Dirichlet conditions are imposed on AB , BC and AD of the space-time domain, and that no boundary condition is imposed on CD . Simulation parameters follow those of Figure 9 .
We present a method for enforcing exactly Dirichlet, Neumann, and Robin conditions on general triangular domains with arbitrarily curved boundaries. The algorithmic constructions developed here complements those in a previous work for general quadrilateral domains. Our method combines (i) the exact mapping between a general curved triangular domain and the standard triangle, (ii) TFC constrained expressions, and (iii) Barnhill transfinite interpolations, to provide explicit closed-form trial ansatze that mathematically satisfy the imposed boundary conditions exactly. Corner compatibility induced by the boundary conditions is pivotal, and enforcing exactly the imposed boundary conditions hinges on the exact enforcement of the induced compatibility constraints. The corner compatibility associated with the acute vertices of the standard triangle and the coupling between gradient components when the hypotenuse corresponds to a Neumann/Robin boundary pose particular challenges. Two strategies are critical to resolving these issues, by reformulating conditional corner constraints into equivalent unconditional forms and by introducing a separate TFC-style auxiliary edge construction together with an associated linear solve on the hypotenuse. We analyze the corner compatibility constraints and present formulations for the general form of functions that exactly satisfy the imposed Dirichlet, Neumann, or Robin conditions on curved triangular domains. The proposed method has been implemented using extreme learning machine type randomized neural networks for solving PDE problems. We present ample numerical experiments with linear/nonlinear PDE problems on a variety of domains with complex boundary geometries. Numerical results show that the current method has enforced the Dirichlet, Neumann, and Robin conditions on curved domain boundaries to the machine precision.
Suchuan Dong, Yuchuan Zhang
Center for Computational and Applied Mathematics Department of Mathematics Purdue University, USA
Operator learning in scientific machine learning is concerned with approximation of maps between infinite-dimensional function spaces; such maps frequently arise as the solution operators of partial differential equations (PDEs). Neural operators have demonstrated broad empirical success at approximating such maps from data. However, most existing neural operator architectures enforce boundary conditions indirectly through training from data even though the boundary condition is often known exactly. Furthermore, existing modifications and approaches that do enforce boundary conditions explicitly suffer from impractical restrictions, including boundary smoothness, uniform grids, and separable, box-like domains. In this work, we propose an architecture which, independently of training, satisfies homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, whilst simultaneously retaining the expressivity of existing kernel-integral neural operator architectures. This is achieved by enforcing the property that the output of each layer is contained in the span of a subset of the homogeneous Dirichlet eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on the output domain. The method requires only that the output domain be bounded with Lipschitz boundary and places no restriction on the choice of discretization, making it applicable to arbitrary mesh data and general geometries. We prove universal approximation for the resulting architecture; furthermore the approach we adopt in the analysis proves universality for a broad class of kernel-integral neural operators thereby uniting existing theory for a variety of operator learning methods. We validate the proposed method on maps defined by the coefficient to solution map in 2D PDEs: Darcy flow on a square domain and the Helmholtz equation on a circular domain. Comparisons are made with alternative methods.
Parametric PDEs can admit different boundary conditions with different accuracy and computational cost. We introduce a framework for learning when one reduced boundary condition can replace another: paired solutions train a neural network to estimate the resulting domain and boundary errors, and the simpler condition is used only when both predicted errors meet prescribed tolerances. We focus on singular limits in applications, in which a stiff Robin or nonlinear boundary law is replaced by its limiting Dirichlet form. We evaluate the method on a galvanic corrosion problem and other nonlinear stationary and evolution problems.
Daniel Fernández, Dominik Penk, Dominik Riedelbauch
Chair for Dynamics, Control, Machine Learning, and Numerics (Alexander von Humboldt Professorship), Department of Mathematics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Cauerstraße, 91058 Erlangen, Germany. · Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG, Industriestraße 1–3, Herzogenaurach, Germany.